Culture Change Correspondent at the United Nations and International Editor
December 12, 2003

This report deals with the US participation at the Ninth Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The official US delegation contains 95 names — by far the largest contingent here, and I was told it was also the largest US contingent ever, at a COP of the UNFCCC. It includes four US Senators, five members of the House of Representatives, 25 Senate staff and 9 staff members of the House of Representatives.

The delegation to this meeting that deals with global warming further includes two staff members of the Executive Office of the President, 22 members of the State Department, 9 members of the Department of Energy, 7 members of the Department of Commerce, 2 members of the Department of Agriculture, one member of the Department of Transportation, three members of the Agency for International Development, 6 members of the US Environmental Protection Agency, and one person identified as Director, Office of Communication for Mining Week understood to be an industry lobbyist listed as part of the US delegation.

It was indeed a formidable representation from a country that basically professes that the Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC is dead. Was this delegation, according to its composition, intended to convince the rest of the world of US worries about the environment and that it has better ideas of how to go about ecological policy?

Further, US citizens came here as part of delegations not on the government list — such as state governments, municipal authorities, business representatives and many non-governmental organizations with various interests. Also a few US journalists — just a few — mainly from business newsletters.

This high interest on the part of the US Legislature and the US Administration was mainly to “bring the light to Milan.” I will specify: On Thursday, there was a press conference given by members of the US Congress. The speakers were Senators Jeff Sessions (AL), Craig Thomas (WY), Larry Craig (ID), Jim Inhofe (OK) and House of Representatives Fred Upton (MI) and Chris Cannon (UT). This true-blue group had only one thing in mind — to disprove that there is any human-induced global warming.

Senator Jim Inhofe, a veteran of such delegations and chair of the group that — if I am not mistaken he was in Kyoto— unfolded the famous chart showing that there was a small ice age in the Middle Ages and restated that some scientists were found to question that we have a global warming effect resulting from burning coal and oil. When faced with the possibility that it is in the nature of science to express an uncertainty, the reaction was that we heard this before. When faced with a question that even if the jury were still out on the science of global warming, the fact remains that it is funds transferred to the oil producers that eventually gave us the September 11, 2001 event. Moreover, the figures they quoted for expenditures on research on potential decreased use of fossil fuels by the US Administration are “peanuts” when compared with the costs of funding terrorism; Senator Inhofe volunteered that 9/11 had nothing to do with oil but with Israel policy.

It should be noted that three members of the House of Representatives did not participate at the above press conference. One of them, Republican congressman Christopher Shays, participated actively at a meeting that evening organized by Resources for the Future, a Washington-based organization, and the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei of Milan (at the latter’s headquarters) where the topic was “After COP 9 - What Are the Next Steps?” Though also Republican, he actually was trying to figure out how to deal with the problems. Also, staff members from Senator McCain and Senator Lieberman offices were here to work with those interested in tackling the global warming issue.

Back to the comment that US officials came here to bring the light, this was done figuratively by the head of the US delegation, Paula Dobriansky, the Undersecretary for Global Affairs, Department of State, when she participated at a meeting titled “US-Italian Technology Cooperation.” At the end, Ms. Dobriansky presented the Italian Minister for the Environment and Territory, the host, with a large Berkeley lamp that saves energy but cannot be used without the right connectors here. In exchange, she got a tour of Italian technology that included a hydrogen-fueled working Fiat. These are the kind of small vehicles that Detroit is contemplating under the US Administration funding for development projects. The Italians have it now.

I overheard an Italian saying that the US Delegation was getting the “Bilateral Rwanda tour.” It seemed like this, when I witnessed Ms. Dobriansky being told that the liquid hydrogen fuel is “very cold.” (Please allow me to excuse myself to the Nation of Rwanda; I guess that statement was also a play of words with the Italian word for “rounds.”)

Now what is actually the US position? It is that the US is worried about global warming and suggests spending money for developing high technologies to be available in 20-50 years, thus justifying doing nothing in the present time. Such technologies include coal-fueled electricity that does not emit CO2, hydrogen fuels from renewable energy, and a new generation of nuclear technology. To these concepts, the German Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Mr. Juergen Tritin, answered that there is not going to be renewable energy sources for the production of hydrogen, unless we start implementing renewable energy programs with today’s technologies, that may then eventually be improved by private enterprise, and there will be economic ways of producing hydrogen from renewable sources at the appropriate time — otherwise we are dealing with “pipe dreams.” Looking at the figures the US quoted for its budgeting for energy development, Mr. David Garman, Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, said that he got only a relatively small reduction of the funding he had asked for. But the funds were switched from the areas he originally suggested to areas such as hydrogen technology. In effect, this was an emasculation of the potential of the presently available technologies in favor of the “pipe dreams.” When asked about these switches, Senator Imhofe’s answer was that further funds will become available.

And how was US participation at the Milan meeting viewed? This can be answered by looking at the “Fossil of the Day” awards from environmental NGOs. USA was the champion garnering 19 points. On December 11, the US got first place with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Oman “for trying to divert attention from urgently needed emission cuts now, by focusing squarely on future technology of capturing and storing CO2 from fossil fuels.” The Saudis, supported by Oman and Kuwait, asserted that CO2 capture would make fossil fuels “climate friendly;” the US joined that position. — thus making it clear that she believes that the Administration believes that there is no human-induced climate change.
This stands makes it clear that the US Administration doesn’t intend to participate in a problem-solving mode. Nevertheless, its large presence here — mainly with folks not related to the actual problem — shows that it is (like the Russians, according to the first report of this series) worried about business implications of being left on the outside. This at a time when Europe and even many developing countries are devising ways of cooperation to reduce greenhouse gases. The presence in Milan of US groups — such as state government and local authorities — shows that the Administration’s approach does not cover the whole spectrum of US interests. Eventually, it will be business groups which are left outside the initiatives being created through the mechanisms that were put in place in Kyoto. The world will start hammering at the Administration’s doors with a call for change. Mexico and Canada ( US’s NAFTA partners) are more comfortable now with the EU’s stand on fighting global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(This article was first posted on CultureChange.org)

REPORT II